PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 23
Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal(33 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe argument contains(20 more words not shown)
- BThe argument ignores(18 more words not shown)
- CThe argument ignores(19 more words not shown)
- DThe premises of(18 more words not shown)
- EThe premises of(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Follow the requirements one step at a time.
To appreciate the technological advances, a person must understand personal-computer architecture. To understand that architecture, the person must be a computer scientist. So appreciating the advances requires being a computer scientist under these premises.
That doesn't mean being a computer scientist guarantees either understanding or appreciation. Imagine Bob is a computer scientist but doesn't appreciate the advances. The two stated requirements don't rule him out: they restrict who can belong to the appreciating group without putting every computer scientist into that group.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion uses another “only” statement, and it's easy to read it as the valid chain we just made. Before accepting it, check which group is now being given a requirement. The flaw question makes that comparison our task. A conclusion saying appreciators must be computer scientists would fit the premises; we need to check what the actual sentence says.
Working the answers
- A
There is an implied relationship. Appreciation requires understanding architecture, and understanding architecture requires being a computer scientist. Those links connect appreciation with being a computer scientist even though neither premise states that whole connection at once. The issue isn't a total absence of a relationship.
- BCorrect
Read the actual conclusion: “Only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists.” That says a computer scientist must appreciate the advances. It is different from saying that a person who appreciates the advances must be a computer scientist.
Our Bob example shows the problem. Bob can be a computer scientist without appreciating the advances while both premises remain true. The conclusion rules out Bob, but the premises don't. The argument has turned a requirement for appreciation into a guarantee that every computer scientist appreciates.
- C
Appreciating other things is compatible with appreciating these technological advances. A computer scientist could enjoy a sunset, music, and new technology. Other interests don't address whether all computer scientists must appreciate the particular advances mentioned.
- D
We can draw a valid conclusion: anyone appreciating the advances must be a computer scientist. The premises therefore don't block every logical inference. They just fail to support the actual conclusion's direction. Don't confuse making one unsupported inference with being unable to infer anything.
- E
The premises do not say everyone understands computer architecture. They restrict understanding to computer scientists. They also don't say every computer scientist understands it. Those restrictions leave plenty of room for people without that understanding, so E attributes a universal claim the argument never makes.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.